Kerryanne,

Population control, Halal accreditation, animal welfare, immigration policy and regional development are extremely important issues, but they are less of interest to me than energy sector and climate change policy issues are. For this reason, I have not commented on all issues raised by you. My view remains unchanged that they are not 100% related to the topic of this discussion (as I have planned it, at least).

In my previous post, I have requested all posters to articulate their ideas how to overcome the government inaction in the climate change issues. My idea was to sum up our discussion. As a result, I have received responses from Ammonite and Yabby which have pretty much summarised their views in this thread over the last week. Could I kindly request you to provide me with your answer to this question, please ?

Actually Rob, much of this discussion comes about because many
people simply do not understand the role of corporations in our
society.

Put it this way. If your bank removed a few hundred $ from your
account and spent it on what they thought was a good cause,
you would holler like hell. Yet many of you expect directors
to do the same with shareholders money.

Directors operate under strict rules, they cannot just do as they
please, just as banks can't help themselves to your money to do
as they please. Those laws are in place for good reasons.

What you can do is give your money to whomever you please. If
companies pay a dividend, so can shareholders. The corporation
is simply a paper entity to combine the investment of funds and
the distribution of any potential profits, or if things go wrong,
to wear the losses

Yabby, You have an idealistic approach to the corporate law and how the corporate world operates. You say "directors operate under strict rules" and "some people do not understand the role of corporations in the society".

I believe that I understand the role of corporations, however, my view is very different. It is based on the pragmatism of the situation rather than on your approach to the corporate law.

With deregulation occurring worldwide and the rapid growth of multinational corporations, their importance to local economies is tremendous. They considerably influence government policies and decisions. It is not only innocent lobbying the political representatives. Blackmail or corruptions are not unusual.

The situation has been deteriorated with the departure from the philosophy of Keynesian welfare state model which has been in place in the western world from the 1930's. Milton Friedman's free market model has been introduced, often through 'shock therapies' worldwide and has been associated with eroding democratic rights. The mentioned earlier Chile, Russia, or the U.S., specifically with the post-Katrina are examples of massive and 'shock' privatisations of government services (Milton Friedman's style) with the use of private security contractors, racism and corruption has been well documented (references to be provided at your request).

Katrina is a particularly important case for this thread topic as we have to be prepared for many Katrinas in the years to come with climate change occuring so rapidly.

The recent bailouts of banks in the U.S. and in Europe is an example of 'socialism for the rich'. For corporations, free markets rules do not always apply. Where are your 'strict rules'? The cost must be borne by tax payers there to keep them afloat.

The future is bleak. Climate change will be associated not only with a fight for the remaining resources, but also with the collapse of democracy and even greater differences between the have and have-nots.

Yabby, You also say that a solution to the climate change / energy problems will be discovered soon. "Answer will most likely come from corporations... They are far more likely to discover some holy grail of energy then any Govt."

They might probably discover the holy grail of energy, but at the time when fossil fuels have been exhausted to the extent they do not bring sufficient profit.

We have to use the technology we have in place now. In a few years time we will be on the path of no return. If we like it or not, the government must control their greed and steer them in the right direction to prevent our self-annihilation. The question remains how to realise this to the government and more importantly to its constituency

*Yabby, You have an idealistic approach to the corporate law and how the corporate world operates.*

No Rob, I take a legal approach. Society makes the rules and enforces
the rules. That applies to all laws and all crimes. Corruption
exists at all levels of society. Go to any third world country, it
is usually public servants who are corrupt, from policemen to
judges to customs officers. If society does not enforce the rules
and deal with corruption, don't be amazed if people of all kinds
break those rules and take advantage of the situation. They don't
have to work for corporations to do that.

*They considerably influence government policies and decisions*

That has nothing to do with globalisation and everything to do with
creating jobs etc. Do you think that business people had no influence
in the days of high tariffs? Think again. People got screwed in those
days, as companies could hide behind high tariff walls and rip off
consumers to their hearts content.

*The recent bailouts of banks in the U.S. and in Europe is an example of 'socialism for the rich'*

No its not. In both cases, politicians screwed up. Reserve banks had
to and still have to try and fix up the mess which they created.
If they had let the economies and banks collapse, the tens of millions
of unemployed that resulted would have been far worse. So far US
banks have repaid any borrowed money, with a good profit for the
taxpayer. Investment bank shareholders were the big losers.

*but at the time when fossil fuels have been exhausted to the extent they do not bring sufficient profit.*

Not really Rob. That discovery could come tomorrow. Just look at
solar cells, they have halved in price in just a few years. If
you invested in them four years ago, you are now a mug.

*We have to use the technology we have in place now*

So who will wear the loss, if that technology is outdated next year
and your investment is near worthless?

*we have to be prepared for many Katrinas in the years to come with climate change occuring so rapidly.*

So move the population uphill a bit, unless your country is err
overpopulated, in which case you should address that problem,
which has been my point all along.